Analizamos la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre, de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia para comprobar qué hay nuevo y qué ha cambiado esta nueva regulación respecto a la norma que la precedió, el RDL 16/2020 publicado durante la primera oleada de la pandemia.
Como ya hiciera la Comisión Europea con su instrumento de liquidez para apoyo a la solvencia (Solvency Support Instrument) lanzado a finales de mayo y cuyos rasgos generales se describen aquí, el Gobierno de España ha creado, mediante el Real Decreto-ley 25/2020, un nuevo fondo para intentar prevenir las insolvencias
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de reestructuraciones e insolvencias.
La competencia para conocer de un ERTE por fuerza mayor derivada del COVID-19 corresponde a la jurisdicción laboral y no al juez del concurso
Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil de León, de 1 de abril de 2020
Un informe de la Comisión Europea, del 3 de diciembre de 2019, analiza en los marcos legales sobre insolvencia e impago de deudas de los diferentes Estados miembros y, en concreto, los distintos sistemas de ejecución –tanto individual como colectiva– y su efectividad para recuperar los créditos de dudoso cobro (NPLs).
Jurisdiction to hear a case related to a temporary layoff procedure due to force majeure caused by COVID-19 lies with labor courts not the insolvency judge
Decision by León Commercial Court, April 1, 2020
In this study dated on December 3, 2019 the European Commission analyzes the legal frameworks on insolvency and defaults in the various member states; specifically, the various individual and collective loan enforcement systems –and their effectiveness for recovering non-performing loans (NPLs).
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
On September 10, 2019, Madrid Commercial Court number 6 delivered a decision arguing that it was necessary to examine whether the prior notice under article 5 bis of the Insolvency Law stemmed from steps taken to prepare or perform serious and effective negotiations.
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC nka Old Cold LLC, (Case No. 17-1657, U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2019) ("Tempnology"). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a trademark licensee can continue to use a trademark license even when a bankrupt trademark licensor rejects the license agreement.